SV: [ANE-2] Re: Book review of the Talpiot tomb- a must read
- Primary source only as so far as we have no older written source. Strictly speaking, Paul never saw Jesus, so he is relying perhaps on eyewitness, and is therefore a secondary witness, not so different from, say Tacitus towards the end of the century, who in his story about Nero's persecutions of the Christians mentions that they derive from a person called Chrestus executed in the time of Tiberias.
Before this discussion goes bananas, I suggest that people stay factual. What do we know and what do we not know, with an emphasis on "know."
Personally I don't see a great problem here. The question is not if Jesus is historical, the question is: Who was he? But this discussion mostly belongs in a biblical list.
Finally Jesus and Socrates: We have plenty of contemporary sources for this guy: Plato, of course, who says that he knew him well, Xenophon, and Aristophanes (apart from Clouds also the Symposion). This is quite different from the situation surrounding Jesus of Nazareth (if the young man escapiung over the wall of Gethsemane in Mark is not Mark himself -- a thought I have never published for serious but would be in line with, e.g. pPlato's excuse for not being present at the process against Socrates and at his execution--thus free to write whatever he thought applicable to the situation).
Fra: ANEfirstname.lastname@example.org [mailto:ANEemail@example.com] På vegne af JPA
Sendt: 4. juli 2007 12:02
Emne: Re: [ANE-2] Re: Book review of the Talpiot tomb- a must read
An early primary source documenting the existence of Jesus is a letter written to a group of people in the city of Rome ca. A.D. 57. It contains statements about the physical existence of a Jewish person by that name (Jesus) who was reported to have been in the Davidic bloodline. The source states that this person was killed prior to the writing of the letter.
It is Rms. 1:3-4: "concerning his Son, who was born of the seed of David according to the flesh, who was declared to be the Son of God with power, according to the spirit of holiness, by the resurrection from the dead; even Jesus Christ
Appears this statement about the existence of Jesus is not in dispute with his readers there in the west, nor with those he wants to visit later back east in Jerusalem. He includes all of these people as "saints, " implying that they all share some very basic in-group commitments (Rms. 15:25.) So, from Jerusalem to Rome, and in between, prior to A.D. 70, we have many people in agreement that Jesus existed.
A list of some of their names and locations is given in Rms. 16 for consideration.
J. Phillip Arnold, Ph.D.
The Reunion Institute
----- Original Message -----
From: Dierk van den Berg
Sent: Monday, July 02, 2007 9:50 AM
Subject: [ANE-2] Re: Book review of the Talpiot tomb- a must read
The thread sounds to me as if some of you have already crossed Rudolf
Bultmann's red line in the Jesus research. Fine, beside questionable,
for engrafted archaeological backdoor records (e.g. "the mask of
Agamemnon"), records geared towards the media, what do you actually
have at hand to provide objective evidence for the historicity of
Jesus the Christ, the ultimate condition sine qua non of any serious
debate on archaeological records allegedly related to a specific
Any substantial would be appreciated.
Dierk van den Berg
--- In ANEfirstname.lastname@example.org, "Bradley Skene" <anebo10@...> wrote:
> The Gospel of Matthew takes pains to refute the charge that Jesus'
> stolen from the cross and secretly buried (27:64; 28:13ff).
> This is evidence that such a charge was known in the community that
> that gospel. And indeed that charge seems to have made, since it is
> about two generations later in Celsus and Justin Martyr.
> On the other hand, the absence of any defense against the charge
> was buried in his family tomb suggests is at least negative
> the charge was not made by opponents of any of the early Christian
> communities that produced the texts (canonical or otherwise that we
> since the idea is never mentioned in any surviving document.
> That isn't conclusive evidence. But look at the alternative. If
> burial took place, surely James, and probably Peter, would have
known of it,
> at least. This means that they either preached a gospel of Jesus
> not include the bodily resurrection (of which there is absolutely no
> evidence), or else they were somehow deluded on the point, or they
> hypocritical. But even to go that far, we're already so far afield
> evidence that it is almost science fiction.
> Bradley A. Skene
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
Yahoo! Groups Links
- My review: http://www.bookreviews.org/pdf/4277_4249.pdf
Niels Peter Lemche
Fra: ANEemail@example.com [mailto:ANEfirstname.lastname@example.org] På vegne af Jim West
Sendt: 5. juli 2007 00:12
Emne: [ANE-2] Re: life after death stuff
Alan Segal's "Life After Death" deals with all the issues that have been
discussed in this thread of another name. If someone has already
mentioned Segal I apologize for repeating it- but if his work has been
mentioned list folk really should give it a read.
> I would like to find clear ancient references to a spiritual resurrection, and am not convinced that the Pauline writings are sufficiently clearly in support of a spiritual resurrection.--
Jim West, ThD
http://drjewest.googlepages.com/ -- Biblical Studies Resources
http://drjimwest.wordpress.com -- Weblog
Yahoo! Groups Links